Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-451/18 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, September 28, 2018

• Resolution Date: September 28, 2018
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-451/18

Action brought on 18 July 2018 - Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB

(Case T-451/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Panagiotis Triantafyllopoulos and 487 other applicants (Patras, Greece) (represented by: N. Ioannou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

order the European Central Bank to provide compensation for their actual harm, as that is specified for each of them in the pleadings, amounting to EUR 83.77 per share in the company, multiplied by the number of shares of which each applicant, natural person or legal person, is the holder;

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of this action concerns the application for reparation for harm which it is claimed was caused to the applicants as shareholders of the ‘Αchaiki Syneteristiki Trapeza Syn. PE’ (the Achaiki Cooperative Bank) by its special liquidation, and which consists of the current actual loss, that is the value of the shares held by each of the applicants. The harm is claimed to have been caused by the inadequate auditing and supervision of the Trapeza tis Ellados (National Bank of Greece; ‘the NBG’) with respect to Αchaiki Syneteristiki Trapeza in the period from 1999 until 2012, but also by the inadequate auditing and supervision of the European Central Bank with respect to the NBG, and, through the latter but also directly, with respect to the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Trapeza.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:

First plea in law: based on the facts, the criminal prosecutions that have been initiated, and national law.

From the year 1999 and until the revocation of the licence of the Αchaiki Synetiristiki Trapeza by the NBG, the various administrations pillaged the bank’s assets, and diverted them to criminal purposes, wholly distinct from the lawful purposes. This took place without any ostensible adherence to the lawful procedures for the operation of a bank. The NBG is under national law the sole competent supervisory authority, with power to take all measures, for prevention, auditing and enforcement, to ensure that all that happened did not happen and did not lead to the dissipation of the bank’s assets.

Second plea in law: based on Article 340 TFEU.

Under Article 340(3) TFEU the ECB, in that it has a separate legal personality, is obliged to make good, in accordance...